G.R. No. 108731 December 10, 1997
DEL MAR DOMESTIC ENTERPRISES and MARIO CHAN, SR., petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, NESTOR HISPANO, LEXIETH LEGASPI, AMADO AGUSTIN, CANDIDO AGUILLEN, EDEN MORALDEC, JOSEPHINE TUMANLAO and VILMA AGUSTIN, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents (Nestor Hispano, Lexieth Legaspi, Amado Agustin, Candido Aguillen, Eden Moraldec, Josephine Tumanlao, and Vilma Agustin) filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of various monetary benefits against petitioners (Del Mar Domestic Enterprises and Mario Chan, Sr.). The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on July 5, 1990, ordering Mario Chan to pay separation pay only to Nestor Hispano and dismissing the complaints of the other complainants. On appeal, the NLRC, in a Resolution dated October 13, 1992, modified the Labor Arbiter’s decision by granting separation pay to all individual complainants, equivalent to one-half month’s salary for every year of service. The NLRC denied reconsideration in a Resolution dated January 11, 1993. Petitioners assail these NLRC Resolutions via a special civil action for certiorari, arguing that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion by: (1) entertaining the appeal despite private respondents’ failure to specify in their appeal memorandum the date they received the Labor Arbiter’s decision, and (2) granting separation pay despite alleged abandonment by private respondents and business losses suffered by petitioners. The factual backdrop involves the dismissal of private respondents during a strike in March 1987. Petitioners claimed the strike was illegal and that a fire of undetermined origin razed about 70% of the company’s premises, rendering the factory useless. They alleged some complainants were never employed, others were union members who sympathized with the strikers by refusing to work, and that Nestor Hispano was later taken in as a utility man at Mario Chan’s residence for a small chicharon repacking business, which was later closed upon government advice.

ISSUE

Whether or not the public respondent (NLRC) gravely erred and committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in reversing the Decision a quo and consequently awarding and ordering payment of separation pay to herein private respondents.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition and AFFIRMED the assailed NLRC Resolutions.
On the first issue, the Court ruled that the failure to allege the date of receipt of the Labor Arbiter’s decision in the appeal memorandum is not a jurisdictional defect but merely a procedural one. The only jurisdictional requisites for an appeal under the Labor Code are (1) perfection of the appeal within the ten-day reglementary period and (2) the posting of a cash or surety bond for monetary awards. The requirement to state the date of receipt under the NLRC Rules is a rundown of the appeal memorandum’s contents, not a jurisdictional requirement. The records showed the appeal was filed within the reglementary period (received July 10, 1990, filed July 20, 1990), causing no prejudice.
On the second issue, the Court found petitioners’ evidence of business losses insufficient. Business losses as a just cause for termination must be serious, substantial, and actual, established by sufficient and convincing evidence. Petitioners merely submitted an unverified financial statement for 1987-1988 without supporting documents like audited financial statements, income tax returns, or other competent evidence. This bare assertion did not meet the required quantum of proof. Furthermore, the Court noted that petitioners failed to comply with the mandatory one-month written notice to employees and the DOLE for termination due to closure or retrenchment. Consequently, the grant of separation pay (equivalent to one-half month’s salary for every year of service) to private respondents was proper under Article 283 of the Labor Code for closure of an establishment not due to serious business losses.